redbikeprince:

i have never read anything more blatantly written by a man before

redbikeprince:

i have never read anything more blatantly written by a man before

(via anoukc)

People run from rain but
sit
in bathtubs full of
water.

Charles Bukowski (via bittersweetsongs)

Wow bukowski so profound do you also bathe fully clothed you dickhead. “Oohh isn’t it funny that a person will eat when they’re hungry but will duck if you throw an apple at their face”

(via coolestpriest)

lmao

(Source: cachaemic, via lez-miserables)

chronicwithcats:

deliciousdannydevito:

shoutout to young adults with debilitating conditions who feel like their lives are stagnant or regressing, while everyone else moves forward

we’re gonna be ok

needed this right now, that’s exactly what’s getting to me

(via lesbianwarfare)

night-catches-us:

kb-saransar:

"According to the FBI, there have been 129 confirmed white Christian terrorists in the last 20 years. That includes Timothy McVae, the uni-bomber, the Atlanta Olympics bomber and dozens of family planning centers and abortion clinics. Muslims? 19. Which would make white people the most likely demographic to commit a terrorist attack. So watch your mouth before you call me a terrorist or I’ll knock your fucking teeth out.

image

(via fawnthefeminist)

[…] “sex negative” and “sex positive” are relatively useless terms with regard to discussing feminist approaches to issues of sex and sexuality. The terms convey the message that “sex positivity” equals support for a vision of sex and sexuality that is defined by patriarchy and one that is primarily libertarian. What’s defined as “sex positive feminism” tends to translate to: non-critical of the sex industry, BDSM, burlesque, and generally, anything that can be related to “sex.” “Non-judgement” is the mantra espoused by so-called “sex-positive feminists,” which is troubling because it ends up framing critical thought and discourse as “judgement” and therefore negative. Since I tend to see critical thinking as a good thing, the “don’t judge me”/”don’t say anything critical about sex because it’s sex and therefore anything goes” thing doesn’t sit well with me.

“Sex negative,” on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men. The reason that feminists are critical of these things is because they want to work towards a real, liberated, feminist understanding of sex and sexuality, rather than one that sexualizes inequality, domination and subordination, is male-centered, and is harmful and exploitative of women. To me, that sounds far more “sex positive” (from a feminist perspective, anyway), than blind support for anything sex-related, because sex.

Stryker says the “infighting” between these two groups upsets her and reminds feminists to “remember who the real enemy is.” And I agree with her that we should indeed “remember” and that, too often, feminists attack and blame one another for problems that result from larger systems of power like patriarchy and capitalism.

17% of cardiac surgeons are women, 17% of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn’t that strange that that’s also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we’re actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you’re an adult, you don’t notice?

…We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there’s 17% women, the men in the group think it’s 50-50. And if there’s 33% women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.